FOCUS ON FORM IN TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING

MICHAELH. LoNG
University of Hawai,i at Manoa

oiven adequate opportunities, older children, adorescents, and adults can and do ream
much ofan
L2 grammar incidenurry, whilc focusing on mcaning, or communicarion. Research shows,
however,
rhar a locus on meuu,g alonc (a) is insuflicienr to achieve full native-rike compctence,
and (b) can be
improved upon, in terms of both mte and urtimatc attainment, by periodic anention to language
as
object. ln crassroom senings, this is best achieved not by a retum to discrete-point grammar
teaching,
or what I call/bcus on fbrns, where cruses sgrnd most of their time working on isolared linguisric
structures in a sequence predetermined extematty by a syllabus designer or texlbook writer. Rather.
during an otherwise meaning-focused lesson, and using a variety ofpedagogic procedures, learnen,
attention is briefly shifted to linguistic code features, in conlext, when studens experience problems
as
they work on communicative task, i.e., in a sequence detcrmincd by their own internal syllabuses,
current processing capacity, and leamability constraints. This is what I calllocus onform.Focus on
form is one ofseveral methodological principles in Task-Based Language Teaching.

The absence of either a widely accepted theory of language leaming or a solid

empirical base for classroom practice has rendered language teaching wlnerable to some
drastic pendulum swings offashion over the years, the coming and going ofvarious
unconventional and unlamented "wonder Methods" being an obvious example. This has
even been true with respect to perhaps the most basic question of all, and one which
inevitably affects the way a course designer approaches the thomy issue of grammar in
the communicative classroom: Is teaching a new language more srlccessful when the main
focus is the L2 as object or the L2 as a medium of communication while students are
leaming something else, like the history, culture, or geography of a society where the L2
is spoken? Histories of language teaching (e.g., Howatt, 1984; Musumechi, 1997) show
that this debate, like so many others in the field, has been continuing for centuries. In this
brief paper, I will anempt to do three things: (a) point out some limitations of both these
approaches, (b) describe a third option-/o on form-which dbals with the L2 as
cus

object, including grammar, but within an otherwise communicative classroom, and (c)
illustrate the role focus on form plays in one kind of communicative program: Task-
Based Language Teaching.

IJniversity of Hawai'i Workint Papers tu ESI, Vol. 16, No. 2, Spring 1998, t'p. 35a9.
36 LONG

basic options for L2

Simplifying somewhat, Figure I illustratcs what I see as three
course design in general, and for teaching grammar in
particular: focus on forms (with an

s). focus on meaning, and focus on form'

Ootion 2 Ootion 3 Ootion I

oralytic oslytic tyttir,llc

hcus on mcaiag bcu on form focrs on fornS

Nanral Approach lBLT GT, Al-tvt, Silcnt WaY, TPR

Immersion Con&ol-Btlcd LT(?)

Pmccdual Syllabus Procc* Syllabu(?) Sfuctrd/N-F Syllabuscs

AE. Gtc. ctc.

Figure l. Options in language teaching

Option It Focus on
lorms
optionlistodayconsideredthetaditionalapproach,althoughithasnotalwaysbeen
The teacher or
viewed that way. Coursc desigr starts with tlrc language to b€ taught'
(rhonemes, words,
textbook writer divides thc L2 into scgmcnts of various kinds
and
collocations, morphemes, s€ntence pattems, notions, functions' tones' strcss
inronation patterns, and so on), and presents these to the leamer in nodels, initially
one

item at a time, in a sequence determined by (rather vague, usually intuitive) notions

of
frequency, valency, or (the all-purposc and qucstion-begging) "difficulty." Eventually,
it
is the learner's job to synthesize thc parts for use in communication,
which is why
wilkins (1976) called this the syz thetic apvoach to syllabus design. It is not just the
syllabus that is synthetic in this approach, however. Leamers are typically encouraged to
master each linguistic item in synthetic syllabuses one at a time, to native speaker levels
using synthetic materials, methodologjr, and pedagogy. Synthetic syllabi (lexical'
structural, and notional-firnctional, for example), are accompanied by synthetic
"methods" (Grammar Translation, ALM, Audio-Visual Method, Silent Way, Noisy
 I''OCUS oN I.'ORM IN TASK.BAST:D LANGUAGE T'EA(HING 37

Method, TPR, etc.), and by the synthetic classroom devices and practices commonly
associated with them (e.g., explicit gramm.u rules, repetition of models,
memorization of
short dialogs, linguistically "simplified" texts, transformation exercises, explicit
negative
feedback, i.e., so-called "error correction", and display questions). Together, they
result in
lessons with what I call a focus on forms. Focus on forms lessons tend to be rather
dry,
consisting principally of work on the linguistic items, which students are expected to
master one at a time, often to native speaker levels, with anything less treated as .,error.,'
and little if any communicative L2 use.
Focus on forms suffers from at least six major problems:
I . There is no needs analysis to identi! a particular learner's or group of leamers,
communicative needs, and no means analysis to ascertain their learning styles and
preferences. It is a one-size-fits-atl approach. This usually results in teaching too
much-some language, skills, and genres leamers do not need-and too little-nor
covering language, skills, and genres they do need. This is discouraging ro students
and ineffrcient.
2. l,inguistic grading, both lexical and grammatical, tends to result in pedagogic
materials of the basal reader variety-"See Spot run! Run, spot, run!"-and textbook
dialogs and classroom language use which are arti{icial and stilted-"Hello, Mary.
Hello, John. Are you a student? Yes, I'm a student. What are you doing? I'm reading
a book, etc."----captured nicely
in David Nunan's example of simplified
Shakespeare-"Stab, Hamlet, stab!", and in classroom input that is functionally
restricted and "impoverished" in various ways. In other words, a focus on forms often
leads to what Widdowson (1972) called language sag'e, not to realistic models of
language use. "Simplification" is also self-defeating in that it srlcceeds in improving
comprehension by removing from the input the new items learners need to encounter
for the purposes of acquisition. (lnprut elaboration can usually achieve comparable
comprehension gains without this disadvantage and without bleeding a text
semantically. See, e.g., Long & Ross, 1993.)
3. Focus on forms ignores language leaming processes altogethel or else tacitly assumes
a long discredited behaviorist model. Of the scorcs ofdetailed studies of naturalistic,
classroom, and mixed L2 leaming reported over the past 30 yehrs, none suggests
anything but an accidental resemblance between the way leamers acquire an L2 and
the way a focus on forms assumes they do, e.g., between the order in which they learn
L2 forms and the sequence in which those forms appear in extbmally imposed
linguistic syllabuses. Synthetic syllabuses ignore rcsearch findings such as those
showing that leaming new words or rules is rarely, if ever, a dne-time, categorical
38 LONG

stages' as well as the fact that

event. and that leamers pass through developmental
many ofthe Brget items students are expected
to master separately are often
(1988) noted' SLA is not a
inextricably bound up with other items' As Rutherford
process of accumulating entities' Yet that is
precisely what a focus on forms assumes'

4. L"urring learners out of syllabus design igrores

the major role they will play in

language development, nonetheless' Research by R'

Ellis (1989) and Lightbown
instructional
for example, shows that acquisition sequences do not reflect
ltlil;.
(see Spada & Lightbown' 1993)'
sequences, and while results are more mixed here
and others suggests that
work by Pienemann (1984 and elsewhere), Mackey (1995)'
teachabilityisconstrainedbyleamability.Theideathatwhatyouteachiswhatthey
just simplistic' it is wrong'
leam, and when you teach it is when they leam it' is not
5. Despitethebesteffortsevenofhighlyskilledteachersandtextbookwriters,focuson
formstendstoproduceboringlessons,withresultingdeclinesinmotivation'
attention, and student enrollments.
6. Theassertionthatmanystudentsalloverthewolldhaveleamedlanguagesviaafocus
onformsignoresthepossibilitythattheyhavereallylearneddespiteit(studiesof
language acquisition in abnormal environments have found
the human capacity for
fact that countless others
language acquisition to be highly resilient), as well as the
havefailed'Afocusonformsproducesmanymorefalsebeginnersthanftnishers.

Option 2: Focus on meaning

A typical response to frustration with option I has been a radical pendulum swing: a
This
shift of allegiance to option 2, and an equally single-minded focus on meaning.
others,
position is implicir in much of the writing of corder, Felix, wode, Allwright, and
programs in
in Prabhu's procedural syllabus, in part of the rationale for French immersion
more
canada, in Newmark and Reibel's Minimal Language Teaching Program, and
recently in Krashen's ideas about sheltered subject-matter teaching, and Krashen and
Tenell's Natural APProach.
Unlike option l, the starting point in option 2 is not the language, bul the learner and
leaming processes. while the rationales and terminology have differed greatly, advocates
of Option 2 typically invoke one or more ofthe following in support oftheir proposals:
(a) the alleged failures or inelevance of Option l; (b) (more positively) the repeated
observations of putatively universal "natural" processes in L2 leaming referred to above,
reflected, among other ways, in relatively common error typ€s and developmental
sequences across leamer age groups, Ll backgrounds. and (naturalistic, instructed and
mixed) leaming contexts: (c) the futility of trying to impose an extemal linguistic syllabus
 FOCUSONFORMINTASK.BASEDLANGUAGETEACHTNG
J9

on reamerc; and (d) the berief that much first

and second ranguage leaming is not
intentionar, but incidental (i.e., wh'e doing something
else) and implicit (i.e., wirhout
awareness), L2A. in other words, is thoughr to
be essentia y simirar to LlA, so
that
recreation of something approaching the conditions
for LlA, which is widely successful,
should be necessary and sufficient for L2A.
Accordingly, option 2 lessons with a focus
on meaning are purely communicative (in
theory, at least). Leamers are presented
with
gestalt, comprehensibre sampres of communicative
L2 use, e.g., in the form of content-
based lessons in shertered subject-matter or
immersion crassrooms, lessons that are
often
interesting' relevant' and relatively successful. It
is the leamer, not the teacher or textbook
writer, who must analyze thc L2, albeir ar a subconscious
level, inducing grammar rules
simply from exposure to the input, i.e., from positive
evidence alone. Grammar is
considered to be best leamed incidentalry and implicitry,
and in the case of comprex
grammatical constructions and some aspects of pragmatic
competence, only to be
leamable that way.
Although arguably a great improvement on Option l,
a focus on meaning suffers from
at least five problems:
l' while not inevitabre, in practice there are usualry no leamer needs or means analyses
guiding curriculum content and delivery, respectively.
2. In the view of many (but not alr) researchers, there is increasing
evidence for the
operation of maturationar constraints, incruding sensitive periods,
in (S)LA (for
review, see, e.g., Curtiss, 1988; Long, 1990, 1993; Newport, 1990).
Thejury is still
out on this, but a number ofstudies suggest that older ch dren, adolescents,
and
adults regularly fail to achieve native-like levels in an L2 not because
oflack of
opporunity' motivation, or ability, important though all these clearly are in many
cases, but because they have tost access to whatever innate abillties they used to learn
language(s) in early childhood. If so, it will be insufticient for lhrer L2 leaming simply
to recreate the conditions for L I A in the classroom.
3. Although considerable progress in an L2 is clearly achieved in option 2 classrooms,
as evidenced, e.g., by the ability ofsome graduates of Canadian French immersion
pro$ams to comprehend the L2 at lcvels statistically indistingr,rishable from rhose of
native-speaker age peers, evaluations ofthose programs have also found that even
after as much as l2 years of classroom immersion, students' productive skills remain
"far from native-like, particularly with respect to grammatical competence" (Swain,
l99l), exhibiting, e.g., a failure to mark articles for gender. Such items have been in
the input all the time, but perhaps not with sufficient salience, ]-d *ith inadequate
sanction (e.g., negative feedback) on their accurate suppliancel Similar findings of
 LONG

prematurestabilizationhavebeenreportedinstudiesofadultleamerswithprolonged
others'
nut*"I .*po.*. by Pavesi (1986), Schmidt (1983)' and
4.white(lgglandelsewhere)haspointedoutthatsomeLl-L2contrasts'suchasthe
$ammaticalityofadverb-placementbetweenverbanddirectobjectin(Ll)French'
quickly the door), appear to bc
Lut it, urrgrur-aticality in (L2) English (*He closed
unleamable from positive evidence alone, i.e.,
simply from exposure to the input'

EnglishspeakersshouldhavenotroublelearningthatinadditiontoJeboisducafe
rcus les iours (l drink coffee every day), it is possible
to say Je bois touiours du cafe
It should be easy
(+l drink every day coffee), which is ungrammatical in English'
because the leamers will hear plenty of examples
of each structure in the French L2

input'i.e.,positiveevidence.Thereverseisnottrue,however'Frenchspeakerstrying
tolearnEnglishinanoption2classroomwillbefacedwiththetaskofnoticingthe
the deviant
absence of the altemative French construction in the input' Worse'
breakdown'
structue (tHe opened carefully the door) causes no communication
makingitlikelythatleamerswillremainunawareoftheirenor.Positiveevidence
alone may suffice to show the leamer what is grammatical'
but not what is

ungrammatical
5.Apurefocusonmeaningisinefficient.studiesshowrateadvantagesforleamerswho
R. Ellis' 1994;
receive instruction with attention to code features (for review' see
L2 input is
Long, 1983. 1988). As I have argued for many years' comprehensible
necessary, but not sufficient.

Option 3: Focus on torm

Both the extreme interventionist focus on forms and non-interventionist focus on
meaning have problems, which often lead to further pendulum swings, as advocates
mistakenly see flaws in the rival position as justifications for their own. There is a viable
third option, however, which attempts to captue the strengths of an analytic approach
while dealing with its limitations, and which I call focus on form (not forms) (Long' l99l ,
to appear; Long & Robinson, in press). Focus on form refers to how attentional resources
are allocated, and involves briefly drawing students' attention to linguistic elements
(words, collocations, grammatical structures, pragmatic pattems, and so on), in contexl, as
they arise incidentally in lessons whose oveniding focus is on meaning, or
communication. the temporary shifts in focal attention being triggered by students'
comprehension or production problems. The purpose is to induce what Schmidt ( 1993'
and elsewhere), calls noticing, i.e., registering forms in the input so as to store them in
memory (not necessarily understanding their meaning or function. which is a question of
 FOCUS ON FORM IN TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEA(,'HING -II

how new items are organized into a linguistic system, and which may not
occu rmtil
much later, and certainly not necessarily with metalinguistic awareness). In other
words
to deal with the rimitations of a pure lbcus on rneaning, systematic provision
is made in
option 3 for attention to language asobject. unlike in option l, however. which forms
are targeted, and when, is determined by the leamer's developing language
system, not by
a predetermined extemal linguistic description. Focus on form, therefore.
is leamer-
centered in a radical, psycholinguistic sense: it respects the leamer's internal
syllabus. It
is under leamer control: it occurs just when he or she has a communication problem,
and
so islikely already at least partially to understand the meaning or frrnction ofthe new
form, and when he or she is attending to the input. These are conditions most would
consider optimal for learning-the psycholinguistic equivalent of worker control of the
means ofproduction.
Focus on form should not be contused with 'form-focused instruction.' The latter is
an umbrella term widely used to refer to any pedagogical technique, proactive or reactive,
implicit or explicit, used to draw students' attention to language form. It includes focus
on form procedures, but also all the activities used for focus on forms, such as exercises
written specifically to teach a grammatical structure and used proactively, i.e., at
moments the teacher, not the leamer, has decided will be appropriate for learning rhe new
item. Focus on form refers only to those form-focused activities that arise during, and
embedded in, meaning-based lessons; they are not scheduted in advance, as is the case
with focus on forms, but occur incidentally as a function of the interaction of leamers
with the subject matter or tasks that constitute the leamers' and their teacher's
predominant focus. The underlying psychology and implicit theories ofSLA are quite
different, in other words. Doughty and Williams capture the relationships among all three
approaches verywell in their forthcoming book (Doughty and Williams, in press-a):
We would like to stress that focus on formS and focus on form are not polar
opposites in the way that'form' and 'meaning' have often been considercd to
be. Rather, a focus on form entails a focus on formal elements of language,
whereas focus on formS is limited to such a focus, and focus on meaning
excludes it. Most important, it should be kept in mind that the fundamental
assumption of focus-on-form instruction is that meaning and use must already
be evident to the leamer at the time that attention is drawn to the linguistic
apparatus needed to get the meaning across. (Doughty and Williams, in press-b.
p.4)
42 LONG

T as k- B as ed Language Teaching
point' so let us see how this would
Some examples would probably be useful at this
workinaparticularkindofcommunicativeclassroom,oneimplemurtingTask.Based
LanguageTeaching(TBLT).Therearescverallinesof..task-based,'workintheapplied
textbook materials. Most
Iinguistics literature, and a flurry of commercially published
as carriers of
really involve linle more than the usc of 'tasks' in place of 'exercises'
be designsted 'task-
either an overt or a covert grammatical syllabus; they slrould not
based, at all, therefore, since they are grammatically based,
not task-based. The task-

basedapproachreferredtohercdealswithgrammar,butwithoutrecoursetoafixed
focus on form'
$ammatical syllabus, through
As described more fully elsewhere (see, e'g', lnng, 1985' 1997' to appear;
Inng &
linguistic
crookes, 1992), recognizing the psycholinguistic problems with synthetic
and employ a non-
syllabuses, the syllabus and methodology for TBLT ue analyic,
and implementing
linguistic unit of analysis, the tast, st each of seven steps in desigring
a TBLT program (see Figurc 2). It is steps I to 5 which conccm
us here with respect to

the Eeatrnent of gr.unmiu in a communicative classroom'

l. Conduct a task-based needs analysis to identiry the learners' curent oI future ,arget
pass'
,asls. These are the real world things people do in everyday life: buying a bus
asking for street directions, anending a lecture, reading a menu, writing a
laboratory

report, and so on. Four of many tsrget tasks for a tourist, for example, might be to
make or change a hotel, plane, restaurant or thcater rcservation'

l. Tast-based necds uulysis to ideatify tancl trsks.

2. Cbssifr bto tarca tssk tvpes.

3. Derivc pglsgsgig55b.
4. Sequcocc to form a task-bascd wllabus.

5. Irnplcmcnt with appropriatc ggg[g!9!gg and DdgSglg.

6. Assess witb task-bascd, critcrion-rcfcrcnccd, DdIIn!!9!lgg!S.
7. Evahutc program.

Figure 2. Stages in TBLT

 FOCUS ON FORM IN TASK-BASED LANGIJAGE TEACHING 43

Classi0 the target tasks into target task types, e.g., making/changing reservations.
This temporary shift to a more abstract, superordinate category during syllabus design
is made for several reasons, including the tiequent lack ofsufhcient time to cover all
the target tasks identified in the needs analysis separately in a course, and as one way
ofcoping with heterogeneou groups ofstudents with diverse needs (for an example
and details, see Long, 1985).
3. From the target task types, deive pedagogic tasks. Adjusted to such lactors as the
leamers'age and proficiency level, these are series of initially simple, progressively
more complex approximations to the target tasks. Pedagogic tasks are the materials
and activities teachers and students actually work on in the classroom. A false
beginners class ofyoung adult prospective tourists, for instance, might stan with the
following sequence: (a) intensive listening practice, during which the task is to
identi[ which of40 telephone requests for reservations can be mel, and which not, by
looking at four charts showing the availability, dates and cost ofhotel rooms, theater
and plane seats, and tables at a restauant; (b) role-playing the parts ofcustomers and
airline reservation clerks in situations in which the airline seats required are available;
and (c) role-playing situations in which, due to unavailability, learners must choose
among progressively more complicated altematives (seats in different sections of the
plane, at different prices, on different flights or dates, via different routes, etc.).
4. Sequence the pedagogic tasks to form a rasl<-b ased syllabus. As is the case with units
in all synthetic and analytic syllabus types, sequencing pedagogic tasks is largely done
intuitively at present. The search is on, however, for objective, user-friendly criteria
and parameters of task complexity and difficulty, and some progess has been made
(see, e.g., Robinson, to appear; Robinson, Ting, & Erwin, 1995).
5. Implement the syllabus with appropriate methodologl artd pedagogt. The way I
conceive TBLT (and LT in general), there is a meaningful distinction to be drawn
between potentially universal methodological principles, preferably well motivated by
research findings in SLA and cognitive science, and desirably parlicular pedagogical
procedures that realize the principles at the local level, choice among the laner being
determined by such factors as teacher philosophy and preference, and leamer age and
literacy level. 'Provide negative feedback' is an example ofa methodological
principle in TBLT (and most other approaches and "methods" in language teaching);
whether it is delivered in a particular cli$sroom thrrough use of an explicit rule
statement, in oral, manual, or wriften mode, explicitly via some form of overt "enor
correction" or implicitly, e.g., via unobtrusive recasts of leamer utterances (see, e.g.
Doughty and Varela, in press; Ortega and Long, in press), and so on, are local
 LONG

pedagogical decisions best left to the teacher. 'Focus on form' is another

methodological principle in TBLT. As an illustration of how it might occur, let us
imagine that while working in pairs on the third pedagogic task outlined above,
a
polite,
number of learners are repeatedly heard to use a form considered insufficiently
e.g., 'l rvant X seats' for'l'd like X seats,' to igrrore key words like 'window' and
.aisle.' and ,coach' and .business,' or to employ singular'seat' when plural'seats' is

required. one way focus on form might be achieved is through corrective feedback
built into the materials themselves, e.g., through the output of task (iii) being rejected
as input for task(iv) in a travel simulation, thereby alerting students to the existence
and/or identity of enor. Altematively, the teacher might briefly intem.rpt the group
work to draw students' attention to the problems, perhaps by modeling one member
of a pair of forms and asking the class if it is good or bad, perhaps by explaining the
difference between the pairs oftarget forms, or perhaps simply by pointing to the
words on the board. As always in TBLT, the methodological principle is the
important thing; the optimal pedagogy for implementing that principle will vary
according to local conditions, as assessed by the classroom teacher. He or she is the
expert on the local classroom situation, after atl, not someone writing about language
teaching thousands of miles away in an office in Honolulu or a commercial materials
writer sipping martinis on a beach in the Bahamas.

Some llsefut Sources on Focus on Form

There is much more to be said about these issues, but I will close by indicating four
useful new sources on focus on form. The firSt two are Comprehensive reviews of
Iaboratory and classroom studies of form-focused instruction (including focus on form)
by the British psychologist, Nick Ellis (1995), and by Nina Spada (1997). Ellis concludes
that the research shows a blend ofexplicit instruction and implicit leaming to be superior
to either one alone. spada, similarly, finds broad empirical support for the view that form-
focused instruction (including focus on form) is beneficial for SLA' Third, two Ph'D.
students at the University of Hawai'i, John Nonis and Lourdes Ortega, are cunently (fall,
1997) conducting a statistical meta-analysis of all studies offocus on form to date' Their
findings are expected in the next few weeks (your prayers are welcome).The fourth
concerns a crucial issue for teachers and researchers alike, namely pedagogical choices in
focus on form (see Figure 3). Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams have recently
completed editing a book for Cambridge University Press: Focas onform in classroom
second language acquisition, due out in March, 1998, which contains several new
 FOCUSON FORM INTASK-BASED LANGUAGETEACHING 45

empirical studies documenting thc efficacy of focus on form with children and adults in a
variety of classroom settings.

+-)Obnuivc
UnobEudvc
FocuconFoln Focus on Form

Inputflood X
Task-csscntial languagc X
InpI .lhrnccmcot x
Ncgotiation x
Rccast x
Output cohanceoot x
lntcraction cohanccmcnt x
Dictogloss x
CRtasks x
Input proccssing x
Garden path x

Figure 3. Degrce of obtrusivends of focus on form (from Dough$ & Williams, in press
c)

One chaptcr in the book, written by thc editors thcmsclves (Dbughty and Williams' in
press-c), focuses on the six decisions and options for t€achcrs and materials desigrers in
this area: (a) whether or not to focus on form, (b) rcactive versuq proactive focus on form,
(c) choice of linguistic form, (d) cxplicitness of focus on fomr, 1|) seQuential versus
integrated focus on form, and (f) the role of focus on form in thd curriculum. In
meticulous detail, Doughty and Williams revicw the options avrilable to teachers at each
juncture, and what the research conducted at Georgctown, Hawhi'i' Urbana-Champaign'
 LONG

McGill, Penn' Edith Cowan' Bangor'

Chicago Circle, OISE, Michigan State, Concordia'
those options. with regard to decision (d),
Thames valey, and elsewhere has to say about
the relative utility of explicit or
for example, since a major research issue concerns
procedures for different target stnrcttues and different
kinds of learners, Figure 3,
implicit
one of several from the Doughty and Williams
chapter, ranks I I procedures for delivering
the research findings on each:
focus on form from least to most obtnrsive, and reviews
rocast' output
input flood, task-essential language, input enhancement, negotiation,
tAsks' input
enhancement, interaction enhancement, dictogloss, oonsCiOusness-raising
processing, and the garden path technique. Besides
providing a service to toachers and

researchers alike, this work by Ellis, Spada, Nonis and Ortega, and Doughty and
granrmar in TBLT
williams, offers the basis for a serious research program on the role of
and other forms of communicative language teaching
for the next decade'
 FOCUS ON FORM IN TASK.BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING 47

REFERENCES

and the modularity of language' In F'

curtiss, s. (1988), Abnormal language acquisition
survey' Linguistic theory" Extensions
Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The cambridge
andimplications,Vol.2(pp.96.116).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Doughty,C.,&.Varela,E.(Inpress).Communicativefocusonform.InC.Doughty&J'
acquisition (pp. l 14.138).
Focus on form in clqssrooll,l SeCofl,d language
Williams,
University Press'
Cambridge: Cambridge
Doughty,C.,&Williams,J.(Inpress.a).Focusonforminclassroomsecondlanguage
U niversnt
O ge : Cambridge
s it i o n' C utU'i
u c qui l^t:t1''
acquisition(pp. 1.1
l).
Doughty,C',&Williams'J'(Inpress-O)'t"ut'andterminology'InC'Doughty&J'
second language
in clgssrotom
Williams, Focus on form

*lli'::t**::1ru:::i;:;.,"gicarchoicesinrocusonrormrnc
Doughty&J.Wiltiams,Focusonforminclassroomsecondlangiageacquisition
on:arevieworrierds'ludies
,,*'iiTJfr *trn*;"'n:ffi 'Tffi::'ffi f
A s'ludv'
**r'-rx]:*i fi;[:""'lhe
,,,,Til1:;;TtrJ'#:*lorc""I* word order *i"r. studies in Second Language
same?

the classroom acquisition

Acquisrtion, 11,305-328' acqutst
. ,tion.Oxford: Oxford University
The study of second language
Eilis, R' (1994)'
Oxford
Press. ,tr:--tioh Inneuae\ teaching.Ob<'ford:
(1984)' A history of Englishlanguag
Howatt, A. P' R'
University Press' ,-^r^rinac heiweeo developmental
and instructional

J"}'i;;r'one(Eds)'classroom-
''{*#,:X;Xl},:ll":::1"::ff
tjnsnos, acquisition (pp'217-2a3)' Rowley'
MA:
in second
oriented research
A review of
NewburY House' make a difference?
language instn'rction
M. H. (1983). Does second
Long,

pieneriin ti'a''l"rZo deling and assessins

}:ilt:'!;{t::;1;:"1ffi1i:':::uranguageacquisi'lion:raskbased
l" K.Hy;'o'" O M'
tanguage ieactring.
secondlanguageacquisitionrnn.i'-nn).Clevedon:Multitir|gualMatters.
 48 LANG

Long, M. H. (198S). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in

second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. I l5-l4l). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, I 2, ZSI-2g6.
Long' M' H' (1991)' Focus on fom: A design feature
in language teaching methodology.
rn K. DeBot, R. Ginsberg, &c. Kramsch
(Eds.), Foreign language research
c r o s s c u I t ur a I p e r sp e
in
c t iv e (&p. 39 - 52). Amsterdam, lohn genj
Long' M' H' (1993)' second language arni;.
acquisition as a functio" *.;;;;esearch
and methodorogicar issues. findings
In K. Hyrtenstan & A.
regression in language viberg (Eds.), progressian
(pp' I g6-221).cambridge: and
Long, M. H. (lgg7).euthenticiry cambridge University press.
and learning
M' Jacobs (Ed.), Language Oorririut in L2 classroom discourse.
crassrooms af tomo*ow: In G.
I69). Singapore: SEAMEO Issues and respawesr,pp.
Regional Language rag_
Cenrre.
unnr*t . rask-based tansuage
ffi ;l ;:f;; ,Jornins oxford: Btackwerr.
rhree upp,o..r,r,
to task-based syuabus
rESoL n,f)iif,"):: r::::r' design.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, p.
(In press). Focus
on form: Theory,
C. Doughty & J. William reseals[, and practice.
r, Foru, onfornl in classre In
(pp' l5-41)' cambridge: second language
acquisition
cambridge university
Long, M' H', & Ross, a,"r::t
s. (r 993). rraoainrution,
ut;;;r*,
tt ranguage and content.
In M.

Mackey, A' (1995).

strpping u;tnr-oo"r.
Input, interacfion
";l"H'::;';"::':m::;7i;;o;;;;:,i.nsgry2e-sz)singapore:
: n e mp i r t oi, t
u ay of q u e s t i
and inrerranguage
f;::K::t rA
" o ns i n E s L.unpu
bt i shed doctorat

M usumech,, o
i:,w::::;::t:;:;
pracfice in second
Newport, E. (1990).
language tuaching.New york: !y;;:':;w{:#::w,,0
McGraw_Hill.
/' rvrsruraronat
Maturational constraints
conr on ranguage rearning.
r 4, 1r-2g. cognitive science,
*l?irl;l,lr,li;#;#;*fl:Tlle
errects ormoders
and recasts on the
rrasrrv'anq aoverb placement acquisition
in L2 Span ish. spanish
Linguistics, l. Applied
Pavesi, M. (1936).
Markedness, discoursal
formar and an informar modes, and relative
clause formation in
conrexr. i,)0,", a
,n srr:":;;;;;*"r,
Acquisitian,a 38_55.
 F'OCUS ON FORM IN TASK.BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING 49

Pienemann, M. ( 1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages . Studies

in Second Lunguagc Acquisition, 6' 186'214'
Robinson, P. (To appear). Task complexity and L2 syllabus design'
Robinson, P., Ting, S.C.-C., & Erwin, J. J. (1995). Investigating second language task
complexity. REI"C Journal, 26' 62-79.
Rutherford, w. (1988). Second language grommar" Teaching and learning. London:
Longman.
Schmidt, R. w. (19s3). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative

competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E' Judd (Eds')'

Sociolinguistics and second langtage acquisition (pp' 137-174)' Rowley' MA:
Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. w. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, I 3, 206-226.
Spada N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review
of
classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching Abstracts, 30,73-87.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P..M. (1993). lnstruction and the development
of questions in

L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, I 5,205-224'

B. Freed
Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In
(Ed.), Foreign language acquisitioni Research and the classroom (pp' 9l-103)'
Lexington, MA: Heath.
white, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of
positive and negative evidence in the classroom . second Langaage Research, 7, l3]'
l6l.
Widdowson'H'G.(1972).Theteachingoflanguageascommunication,English
Language Teaching, 27, 15-19.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuser. Oxford: Oxford Universlty Press'

Michael H. Long
Department of ESL
1890 East-West Road
Honolulu, Hawai' i 96822

e-mail: mlong@hawaii.edu